Railroad Forums 

  • A question about HO scale turnouts & more

  • Discussion related to everything about model railroading, from layout design and planning, to reviews of related model tools and equipment. Discussion includes O, S, HO, N and Z, as well as narrow gauge topics. Also includes discussion of traditional "toy train" and "collector" topics such as Lionel, American Flyer, Marx, and others. Also includes discussion of outdoor garden railways and live steamers.
Discussion related to everything about model railroading, from layout design and planning, to reviews of related model tools and equipment. Discussion includes O, S, HO, N and Z, as well as narrow gauge topics. Also includes discussion of traditional "toy train" and "collector" topics such as Lionel, American Flyer, Marx, and others. Also includes discussion of outdoor garden railways and live steamers.

Moderators: 3rdrail, stilson4283, Otto Vondrak

 #1173632  by Snowmojoe
 
Hi everyone,

It looks like I will be returning to model railroading after a very long absence. The last time I had a layout at my disposal was when I was child — the train set that was taken apart by my Dad when I left for college and had probably sat idle for years before that. I have recently bought my first house, and in the process of moving, discovered the trains that had been packed away, and decided hey, why not see what I can do with this stuff again? Now I've got my own basement to build it in, so why not?

When I was a kid, not surprisingly I had less of a desire to pay attention to the details, particularly when it came to track layout. I basically just mashed it together and made it do what I wanted it to do. This time around though, I would like to pre-plan my layout such that I know that the track I am using will be capable of doing what I am planning on doing.

It will be a while until my basement is ready for proper construction, so I am satisfying my itch by "building" a layout in Adode Illustrator. I have measured some pieces of Atlas track, and using those measurements, I have tried to pre-plan my track layout, using a few basic guidelines about what I know I want present in the layout and how the track fits/should fit together. For example, I assembled a simple circle of 18" radius track, and took note of the fact that 3 pieces of "pre-cut" curve track gives you one 90º portion of a circle, which means that each full piece of track represents 30º of a 360º circle... etc etc. This allows me to draw the various track segments and then properly rotate and fit them together when necessary. It has allowed me to estimate distances down to some very small numbers - ten-thousandths of an inch in some cases.

My problem, and therefore my question, comes from a couple of dangerous assumptions I am making about the track I will be using, which I had to make because I did not have access to the necessary track to measure it. First of these assumptions is 22" radius curves - how many pieces of "pre-cut" Atlas 22" radius curve make up a 90º turn? I assumed that three curves again would make 90º, as it does with 18" radius curve. But if it doesn't, and say it takes four pieces of 22" radius curve to make a 90º turn, then the layout I have drawn up for myself needs major modification.

The second and probably much more critical/dangerous assumption I have made involves switches/turnouts. Are switches (be it #4, #6 turnout, whatever the appropriate turnout # may be) manufactured to mimic 18" radius curves or 22" radius curves? Preliminary measurements I have taken from some of the packaged Atlas switches I have indicate that maybe I have jumped the gun in assuming that you can simply remove one curved section of track from a simple circle and replace it with a turnout and not effect the shape of that circle. The question at hand applies to both straight and curved turn-outs.

As mentioned above, if one or both of these assumptions is off base, which is entirely possible, then it's back to the drawing board for me. And while that isn't very much of a big deal (I doodled this up in my spare time), it would be nice to go back to that drawing board actually knowing what I am doing this time.
 #1173657  by umtrr-author
 
Welcome back to model railroading!

You are correct in assuming that a #4 or #6 turnout doesn't exactly mimic the path of a curved section. The Atlas "Snap-Switch", when combined with a 1/3 section of 18 inch radius track, does (more or less) drop into the space of a single 18 inch radius curved section, but an Atlas #4 turnout does not.

Curved turnouts should have two radii listed: one for the inside curve and one for the outside. I don't recall whether Atlas makes these in HO Scale (they do in Code 55 in N Scale, but that's another story).
 #1174268  by SlowFreight
 
IIRC, the 22" curves are shorter than the 18" curves, so you'll probably need 4 to make a quarter circle.

Might I throw out the idea of flex track? First, even 22" curves are mighty sharp, and some #4s are no better. If you want to run longer equipment, you're probably better off using 24" curves and #6 switches as your minimum, and bigger if you can get away with it. But since it's hard to find sectional track in bigger than 22", you have to switch to flex track.
 #1174719  by Otto Vondrak
 
Snowmojoe wrote:Hi everyone,

It looks like I will be returning to model railroading after a very long absence. ...As mentioned above, if one or both of these assumptions is off base, which is entirely possible, then it's back to the drawing board for me. And while that isn't very much of a big deal (I doodled this up in my spare time), it would be nice to go back to that drawing board actually knowing what I am doing this time.

Welcome! There are several books of track plan ideas using sectional track that may help get you started. Trying building a small layout to get used to the idea of how track works together before attempting a project too large. Overall, have fun!

http://carstensbookstore.com/colaplforall.html

http://carstensbookstore.com/trdeedbyhalc.html

http://carstensbookstore.com/ezmorabychla1.html

http://download.atlasrr.com/09TrackCat/HOScale41-78.pdf

http://www.amazon.com/Track-Plans-Secti ... 089024510X

http://www.amazon.com/HO-Blueprints-10- ... B0006O7PJ4

http://www.amazon.com/HO-Layouts-For-Ev ... B0006KSL5U

http://www.amazon.com/Beginners-Guide-H ... B0006KSL64
 #1175158  by Snowmojoe
 
SlowFreight wrote:IIRC, the 22" curves are shorter than the 18" curves, so you'll probably need 4 to make a quarter circle.

Might I throw out the idea of flex track? First, even 22" curves are mighty sharp, and some #4s are no better. If you want to run longer equipment, you're probably better off using 24" curves and #6 switches as your minimum, and bigger if you can get away with it. But since it's hard to find sectional track in bigger than 22", you have to switch to flex track.
I did consider flex track and I certainly have no problem using it - I'm using it already in a couple spots due to some irregular lengths and curves. I just wanted to lay it out in such a way that I knew it would work and fit the space I have.

As far as tight curves go, I do understand that you want as large a radius to your curves as you can get, but I am a little crunched for space, so I don't think anything larger than 22" is really an option for me. I am going to try to con my wife into giving me a 6x8 foot space in the basement to work in, but I may end up being limited to 4x8 (if I have to go any smaller, I may not even bother...) So, my plan was really to pack as much "action" as I could into that 6x8 space. I'll tell you what - I'll put up a screenshot of the layout I worked out, and you guys can critique if you like. Like I said earlier, it's very much a theory right now, so changing it is hardly a problem. The main element of this "vision" was that I always wanted a two-track mainline right-of-way when I was a kid, so I am trying to right this injustice now as an adult; hence the 22" radius curves and the 18" radius curves.
http://home.earthlink.net/~image-dump/i ... ayout2.jpg

I don't have much in the way of long rolling stock or locomotives; F7s were always my favorite body style, so the preponderance of my motive power is F-style (in fact, right now, I can't think of a diesel locomotive I have that ISN'T an F2/F3/F7/F9 or an FM C-liner). I have two steam locomotives, but they are an 0-4-0 and an 0-6-0 with a tender. I am also trying to fix another 0-6-0 saddle tank switcher. I had a 2-10-4, but I sold it on eBay b/c I knew it wasn't going to like this layout.

I am even using some 15" radius curves in some non-mainline spots. I figure I'll probably only be using small switcher locos on those sections anyway, aside from parking some rolling stock on the sidings as well.
 #1175684  by SlowFreight
 
Have you thought about going around the wall instead of building an island layout in the middle of the room? A narrow shelf railroad is actually a great way to go for a few reasons. First, it's easier to access everything than if you're reaching over the middle of a big 6x8 table. Second, you can have more realistic scenes. Third, you can actually get a way with a little less scenery, and keep it more focused towards train-related modeling. And fourth, I've found that when you use curves sharper than you like, trains look better when viewed from the inside of a curve than when viewed from the outside.

I have one friend who just hadn't thought about going around the edge of the room, and once he stopped planning an island layout, everything just fell into place.
 #1177307  by Snowmojoe
 
The layout pictured was actually deviously planned as only part of a larger shelf railroad... there are tracks on the right hand side that currently dead end as sidings that I envisioned eventually using to extend out along a shelf and move into other parts of the basement once I was sure what kind of room was going to be available to me. I'm eventually envisioning allowing my children to "play" with this as well, and possibly building them a smaller island layout of their own, connected to this, that we could run trains back and forth to. But, we'll see about all that when it comes. They may not have even the slightest interest in it, but I'll do just about anything to keep them from becoming video game zombies.

To alleviate the problems I foresaw with having to reach out over the big 6x8 foot table, I was going to build-in an 18-inch by about 5.5 or 6 feet access hole in the middle, which is represented by the dark gray rectangles on that layout in the link posted. Then there was a little sort of semi-permanent "bridge" built into the middle of that, just to allow for the completion of the two smaller interconnecting ovals. If the bridge ends up causing me trouble, I can always eliminate it from the plans and not build the two small inner oval loops. I thought that having that little access well would give me enough ability to reach pretty much every point on the table without knocking over or breaking the stuff closest to me.

All of this of course is going to have to be submitted to and approved by the Minister of the Interior (of the House), so in the end, this may all be a pipe dream anyway... just scratching a little mental itch for now. :-)